Are You An Elitist? Class Warfare And The New Nobility

One of the easiest ways to put someone on the defensive in America is to accuse him/her of being an elitist. The power of this accusation derives from a complex mix of dynamics. At least one goes all the way back to the founding principles of the nation: a profound and abiding distrust of monarchy and landed nobility, and a well-grounded fear that democracy could be subverted and a new form of feudal monarchy returned to power.

It is increasingly clear that a new form of feudalism has indeed subverted democracy, and that the New Feudalism is powered by concentrations of private wealth and centralized state control: what I call the New Nobility.

Recall my Feudalism Corollary #1:

If the citizenry cannot replace a dysfunctional government and/or limit the power of the financial Aristocracy at the ballot box, the nation is a democracy in name only.

This is why politicians bred in the hothouses of elite universities must perform "I'm one of you" rituals such as publicly enjoying low-brow snack food and attending mid-brow music performances. That such transparent immunizations against charges of elitism still work is testament to the credulity of a media-soaked populace.

There is an uglier aspect to the accusatory power of charges of elitism: as the sense that hard work and integrity are no longer guarantees of upward mobility in America, a corrosive class envy is coming to a boil.

This is the subtext of the emergent topic of the day, wealth and income inequality.

Since the vast majority of us cannot lash out in any satisfying way at the top .01% who own most of the wealth and control the political machinery--in other words, the New Nobility--we seek some other accessible target.

Expressing anger at the representatives of authority--police, Homeland Security, etc.--is a risky proposition, as being beaten and hauled off to jail or being shot are distinct possibilities.

Beyond the overwhelming use of raw force, authorities maintain an arsenal of soft weapons such as false public accusations, vague legal charges that keep morphing as the accused demolishes each specific charge, IRS audits, and so on.

This rage at the dominance of essentially feudal elites and their armies of underlings willing to enforce their rule is increasingly being directed at the elected toadies and lackeys. In response, craven politicos are restricting their exposure to angry serfs.

That leaves the top 10% as the only accessible target for class envy and the generalized rage of a peasantry that cannot identify the causes of their servitude.This is misdirection, of course; the top 10% of professionals and technocrats have benefited within the New Feudalism, but they are functionaries, not the New Nobility.

It's clear that the top 10%--the class of technocrats, professionals, entrepreneurs and creatives--has managed to increase their wealth despite the dominance of the top .01%, whose wealth and power has pulled away from the top 10% and even the top 1%.

Because the super-wealthy are in the top 5% and top 1%, the average incomes of these groups are heavily skewed by the enormous incomes of the top 01%. As a result, it would be more accurate to remove the top .1% from the top 10%, top 5% and top 1%, but I haven't found any statistical charts that reflect this.

Rather than being "the enemy," the top 10% feels they're the good guys, the ones providing jobs and paying most of the taxes that support the bottom 40%. While the bottom 90% focuses on their own set of resentments, the top 10% have their own resentments: the public services they pay for are often marginal or poor quality.

This reality is fueling a movement of wealthier communities to incorporate into new cities that are operated for the benefit of their residents: services are run more like businesses than spoils systems (the default model of large urban cities), taxes are kept low and feedback from taxpayers keeps service quality high.

The New Feudalism a partnership of the Tyranny of the Majority, entrenched incumbents and the top .1% Elites. If the political Status Quo alienates the majority by making them pay more taxes, they risk losing power in the next election. If they alienate the top .1% who fund their multi-million-dollar campaigns, then they will also lose power. So they heap the tax burden on what remains of the middle class.

There is a social dimension to this emerging class warfare, a topic I discuss in Bifurcation Nation (June 24, 2013). The top 20% is characterized not just by wealth but by a set of cultural behaviors, values and norms that are increasingly divergent from the norms and behaviors of the bottom 80%.

The haves are married, have college degrees, rarely have military service, attend religious services, and have little contact with those outside their own upper-middle class.

The have-nots are divorced/single parents, less educated, more likely to have served in the military, less likely to attend church, and earn much less than the haves.

I myself am routinely accused of being elitist, on the grounds that few can afford the meals I present here. I have repeatedly proven this assertion to be absolutely false, as home-cooked meals are cheaper than fast-food "value meals" or packaged convenience food. America's Excuse Book: Take Your Choice, Victim or Heartless Hypocrite (December 2, 2013)

These accusations are especially irksome because I have been low-income for most of my adult life and have carried far too much lumber on far too many jobsites to tolerate any accusations of elitism. I suspect many others routinely accused of elitism feel the same way.

The urge to accuse everyone with something better than you have of being part of an exploitive elite reflects not just generalized rage but the victory of victimhood. Sadly, one of the few ways for the marginalized in our society and economy to "get ahead" is to make claims of victimhood to secure disability, social services, etc. The core of victimhood is "it's not my fault." The system rewards victimhood, so it's no surprise that has become a dominant social norm.

And where does this set of norms lead us? To a dysfunctional divide-and-conquer society in which the top 10% paying most of the taxes is increasingly resentful of the .1% New Nobility above them and the masses below that look at the 10% as the only accessible target of their generalized anger at the injustice of their servitude and powerlessness.

The top .1% New Nobility, which of course includes all the craven politicos in thrall to the super-wealthy, have the means to sequester themselves away in gated estates and private jets. No wonder the top 10% is actively pursuing whatever means are available to avoid the resentments of those below.

Meanwhile, those running the mainstream media and the machinery of governance have to generate targets for the generalized rage other than the actual sources of dysfunction: the centralized state itself and the private concentrations of capital that partner with the state's elites in the New Nobility.

Charles overlooks (or is ignorant of) the fact that this nation was intended to be for those who owned land or property (which is not necessarily synonymous). Rights derive from property ownership. Our rights derive from our primary property, which is our body. From there, rights derives from claims on property and land.

If you want to be an elite in this country, buy some land. It doesn't matter how small or pathetic; if you own land in this nation, you have rights.

Not virtually, actually. There is no such thing as allodial title in America. However, the Supreme Court has held that "fee simple" is the highest form of title and it is "like allodial". You can get fee simple ownership of land in America that is not subject to any taxation. I'll write about it once I figure it out.

They atually tried to pass legislation in Nevada to allow you to "buy" your title back from the king. It didn't pass. It would have required you to pay all the taxes on something you already own into the future. If you go to the assessor's office or the treasurer's office and ask how you can obtain your allodial titles you get a blank stare and are put on a soveriegn citizen watch/hit list.

You are issued a "certificate of title" on property. So...my land, mobile home and vehicles all have "certificate of title" issued to me which means even though they are paid for, the state (king) holds the "allodial title" which entitles them to tax me on them and to confiscate them upon failure to pay the king's rent (tax).

This is a BIG topic historically and one probably needs to go back to the 'Enclosure Movement' when European royals allowed nobility to fence off as big a piece of the lands as they had thugs to defend it. Prior to Enclosure there was no rent as we know it today.

A scholar's topic and probably requires a scholar's time (10 years?) to fully understand.

And herein lies the problem. Total (allodial, fee simple, or what have you) ownership of land doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot if you can't personally defend it, consistently. Common law concerning land ownership evolved as it did for precisely this reason. Today, if someone encroaches or trespasses on your property you can seek redress in court. In your example, redress came at the end of a sword, provided you had enough swords.

I'll readily concede that a court system honoring centuries of common law that settle disputes among land owners is a good thing, however I don't see how that makes government the superior landlord over all property in the United States. The property tax system is a heinous violation of basic human rights. And don't even get me started on eminent domain.

See what I wrote below in reply to someone else. Land is not taxable. But property is. So what is property? Property is an attribute of something real. Property is the right.

PROPERTY. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; ... in the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government.

So, for example, "Real Property" is simply property rights pertaining to physical land, but the property is not the land, it is the assignment of various rights to the land (title, interest, use, control, possession).

So the question is, how did you create a taxable "property"? And if it can be created, it can be destroyed. And once destroyed, with it goes the property tax.

You are right and there is a guy in Wisconsin who has done what you say. He owns the land/property, not a "grant" deed (granting you use of the land). It is all in the language. If I remember correctly, he had to find the original land patent to show no other claim on the land, and then had to do something in court. I will see if I can find the info.

EDIT: I think you have to buy the land with lawful money too. Not FRN's.

Nevada did have a statute that allowed a property owner to pay off the tax lien on their land at an accelerated rate (i.e. minus 50 years of accruing interest payments) and gain "allodial" title but those provisions were rescinded in 2011 or thereabouts.

However, it demonstrated (to me at least) that the only thing between you and your land ownership in "allodium" (i.e. without even taxation) is discharging the tax lien. Figuring out how to do that is the rub.

I'm a commercial RE appraiser. Have yet to come across anything with Alloidial title, but I work in the mid-atlantic states where that would likely have been aborted long ago. Not sure if TPTB would care about it if they wanted to take it.

As you know, the highest title to land in America is a land patent. Once a land patent is assigned by way of a land patent grant, the title goes to the assignee. The wording I've always seen in every land patent I've researched is "TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said tract of Land...unto the said claimant, and to the heirs and assigns of the said claimant, forever".

I have researched the "TO HAVE AND TO HOLD" part, which is the habendum and tenendum, terms from older feudal law I believe, where the words "to have" denote the estate to be taken, while the words "to hold" signify that it is said to be held of some superior lord, i.e. by way of tenure. (Black's Law Dictionary 4th)

So, either that right there is the nexus that obligates a land patent claimant to pay some form of property tax on the land (land is not taxable, property is; there is a difference) or there is something else. Perhaps it is the recording of the deed, which is not actually required under the law. Here's some interesting case law I found for California:

Recordation is a device to establish priority, but has nothing to do with conveying title. Lawler v. Gleason, 130 Cal. App. 2D 390

Also, generally speaking, failure to place an instrument on record is not a violation of law or infringement of public policy. It follows that a delay in recording an instrument for a long period does not impeach its validity. Knox v Kearney, 40 CA 290.

I'm pretty sure I'm on the right track, I just have to figure out how to lawfully discharge whatever tax lien may be on the record. Or it might be a matter of removing the property on the land that creates the tax obligation.

You've done a lot of work on this I see. I solve word problems all day based on the common definitions of fee simple, leased fee and leasehold. And have not spent much time on anything else. Alloidial title is not something I have come across in any of my formal education, not something eagerly advertised by any formal organisations.

1) update the original Land Patent with the legal description for your parcel in metes and bounds.

2) research the abstract of titles, make a claim as a heir or assign, and bring the title forward minus any exclusions.

3) re-record the updated Land Patent at the County Recorder?s office in the " Great Book."

UPDATE THE LAND PATENT AS A HEIR OR ASSIGN

Federal Liens and Property Taxes

In the de jure united states of America and under the Common law, the land patent is the highest evidence of title for the sovereign American "state" Citizen, evidence of allodial title and true ownership. But in a bankrupt and de facto federal United States inhabited by U.S. citizens and directed by its creditors under Admiralty law, the Land Patent is collateral hypothecated against the debt which has been fraudulently transferred to the international bankers.

Most people do not remain in the same quintile for their entire lives. There is constant movement into, and out of, the 1%, the 5%, the 20%, etc. That is the churn. In fact, one out of 12 Americans will be in the top 5% at some point in their lives. The 'churn' applies to all quintiles.

The attacks on "the rich" are just Alinsky-style rabble rousing. As the late, great Reverend Ike often said, "If you hate the rich you ain't never gonna be rich, because you don't want to be what you hate."

Even the poorest Obamaphone user secretly wants to be among the 1%. But it's easy to generate their hate via envy. So they will never be rich. Class warfare will see to that.

My hatred is for people like Alinsky, who are leading 'the poor' to hell in a handbasket.

"Class warfare reflects a dysfunctional divide-and-conquer society"
Divide and conquer, my butt.
There IS class warfare occurring.... and the common man is getting his ass kicked...
so much so that even Princeton picked up on it....

I've spent more than enough of my life with the rich elitists and sonbbish liberal intellectuals. They are a different breed. They sneer at the middle class and express empathy with the poor but rob both. They are stingy, racist and believe that their wealth and position was gained by superior abilities. I could fill a book a quotes about this group that sear anyone else to their souls. All in all I'd rather spend time with the homeless than this breed of asshole.

There should be a requirement that everyone in the top 1% spend 2 weeks of every year on a farm or construction site just to appreciate their fellow man.

When I was a poor, shabbily dressed, badly housed, often-unwashed and poorly groomed college student, no one looked down on me and sneered at me like all the liberal academics and intellectuals/pseudo-intellectuals and wannabe "hipsters."

Of course, part of the problem was that I was 32 when I started college. I had already long since done most of my formative reading and thinking, and had even kind of "been around" in odd, non-regulation/disreputable ways, and so I was not an easily-molded/brainwashed blank slate like all the kiddies.

And I held, and expressed, views and attitudes that could be called vaguely small-L libertarian and/or anti-statist. To the liberal academics, who deified the State, that made me a dangerous heretic, a radical extremist. A lot of them would have had a net thrown over me if they could. They certainly wanted to drive me out by hook or by crook.

I'm an elitist; and I like it. But I want to be left alone to live my life too; Probably most people have the same desire. Maybe that's why they had an American Revolution and Consitution in the first place? Could be.

Classic bullshit......a household income of 150K makes you just dirt to the real "elitist"........DIRT! Just another divide and conquer to make those in the "top 10%" to think they have real money......Most are just debt slaves like everyone else.........hehehehhheehe.......SUCKERS!!!!!!

Sadly, when most of these statist have a pre-designated bullet hole in their head. US media will be spinning terrorist attack. This is when the MSM gets the silver bullet extinction for following the script of deception. Always cover up your tracks when logged onto Xkeyscore.. Fuck off MSM assholes. You’ll get the bullet first. Too bad your employer will pull the trigger.

You only try to conceal if you accused of being an elitist if you obtained the position through some underhand mechanism.

Those that make it through honest and integrity will be admired although they are a very rare species.

Now look at the advertising of so many big corporations painting this corporate image of how nice they are. If they really were that nice you know they would not have to conjure up this image because it would be known and talked about in the crony capitalist world we live in.

I was taught (in the South) that it was a republic as well. That the rule of law really mattered to everyone. Despite the protestations of statists everywhere, offering "their" goodies (from my pocket) to anyone who would just vote for them and "democracy", just simple bribery.

And here we are.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you!...lol.

If you study most uprisings, you'll see that the leaders of the rebellion are usually from the top 10% and not from the ranks of the poor. This is probably because the top 10% have the resources to start the rebellion. They also deal with the elite and have access to the superstructure so they know the weaknesses and are able to take it down from within.

I sure do Yen. What that guy did was a real inspiration and we're working hard to do something similar.

We're pretty far off the beaten path in the process of setting up what some might call a hobby farm. It's hard work but before long we hope to be fairly self-sufficient. For a while now, interest in all the scandals/wars/fraud/etc one can read about on the Internet has been waning and the TV is long gone. But it's hard to get all this crap completely out of my head. We feel bad for the kids coming up and that we share some responsibility. I'm just not sure what we could do now, or could have done earlier that might make a difference. It's like being haunted, almost.

And that is ... what exactly??? Subservience to the geniuses in govt? Seizure of all assets every 5 years, and redistribution ... by those geniuses in govt? Compulsory enslavement ... by those geniuses in govt? What?

The fact is "when's the last time you got hired for a good job by a poor guy" sounds great but today the real question is ... "when's the last time you got hired for a good job by anyone at all?"

And no .. I don't have the answer either, but I have yet to see a system that works much better than generally free markets. Some shitwit anti-free-market-fuck will no doubt have an aneurysm because I said that.

Most of the time just drunk, stupid loudmouths. It's all about me, my Harley, fat bitch, put the flag everywhere, me real American (and nobody else but the likes of me), never been in any war, salute the troops all the time, gimme another beer. God bless the USA.

They love Revolution and guns most when they are drunk. They'll confront 'the officer' only when they are drunk. Otherwise they are like puppies.

Spoken like someone who only reads about rednecks, instead of actually knowing any personally. I know more than a few who are quite educated and diverse. They can not only build planes but they can fly them too...shocking I know...lol...or plumbing or electrical or cabinetry or carpentry, ship builders, masons...the gamut.

And they can actually feed themslves without turning to .gov. Can you do any of these things? Just because one of their favorite pass times is to shoot holes in street signs is no reason for the hate.

Just think of that as a Keynesian make work project for your beloved unionized state worker.

Well, when you give a poor man $100 you deposit it in the rich man's bank, who takes a piece of the action. Then he spends it in the rich man's Walmart, who takes a piece of the action. And the sales tax, cigarette tax, booze tax, etc take a piece of the action. And then he pays the rent, and the rentier gets what's left. So, give a poor man $100 and he gets a beer, a burger, a smoke and a place to crash and the rich man gets $90. The only difference now is the rich man no longer sees fit to hire the poor man as part of the bargain.

Point well taken nmewn...I'm not too keen on giving handouts myself. If somebody needs help, fine, I'm all for "do unto others" but that's not what's going on here in USA. I believe it to be social engineering - if responsibilities are permanently removed - one tends to become irresponsible. Then thye vote for the Bureau of Responsibility people. Also, for every dollar of somebody's money the govt gives to someone else...there's a giant bureaucracy of govt loafers who take a bunch of dollars themselves.

Maybe that's how the poor guy got the 100 bucks in greatbeard's comment? Painting, hammerin' and sweeping for the rich guy, but he also noted the rich wasn't hiring lol.

"Elitist" is a title that I dislike, and attempt to avoid using for the ruling classes, because they do not deserve that elevation. The only thing that they were the best at was being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, by applying the principles and methods of organized crime to dominate the political processes, in order to create runaway feedback loops of legalized violence to back up their legalized lies. There is NO "nobility" in the current ruling classes. What they do is primarily based upon evil deliberate ignorance, which only works because they have been able to instill the same attitudes in those that they rule over.

In my view, the basic problem is that those ruling classes have become criminally insane. Their successfully backing up lies with violence has driven the entire society to behave in more and more criminally insane ways. Deeper problems are the degrees to which that vicious spirals of enforced frauds have enabled the majority of people to be scientifically brainwashed to believe in bullshit social stories, which are like the state religion that they were born into, and so, never gain any better perspective about. In that context, one should recall that the BIGGER problems are that the runaway social polarization is matched, and will be surpassed, by runaway destruction of the natural world.

"Elitist" is OK because it implies conformism, fascism, progressivism, cronyism, and the opposite of egalitarianism. Whereas, the term "Elites" does indeed imply that they are bad but are also somehow better than others, so I often preface that term as self-proclaimed elites.

Certainly the government should treat everyone equally, but I didn't mean to imply that there aren't real elites, but the term is now a pejorative because so many are fake elites. For example, has there ever been a bigger fake elite than Obama?

Well, kchrisc, I am not sure what words to use, since the language which we grew up with was always almost totally dominated by the biggest bullies' bullshit world view. There are no good labels for the paradoxical ways that the best organized gangs of criminals take control over the government, which thereby becomes the biggest form of organized crime, while the "citizens" within that system are taught by the public schools and mass media to misunderstand everything.

The best way to lie is "lying by omission," and the schools and mass media are masters of that form of lying. The most important thing that the ruling classes have achieved was their ability to create the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts. Private banks enjoy that legalized counterfeiting, while for everyone else that is a crime. However, apart from a few, still relatively fringe Web sites, one will not ever see that central social fact mentioned much in the public schools and mass media, and certainly never presented as what it really is, i.e., legalized fraud, enforced by the government, which has been the main means through which the ruling classes have accumulated their vicious spiral of political power.

The language that I use endeavours to become more universally scientific about how and why the government is the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gang of criminals, in sufficiently scientific ways which do not then collapse back to the same old-fashioned false fundamental dichotomies, and related impossible ideals, which are the biggest bullies' language, that enables them to continue to more easily be professional liars and immaculate hypocrites.

I try to present a more scientifically consistent perception of how and why human realities are always organized lies, operating robberies, in which context the ruling classes were better at doing that, which included being able to teach those they rule over to not want to understand that. It would take enough people understanding enough that, as citizens, they were really members of an organized crime gang, for them to be able to respond how the ruling classes have applied the methods of organized crime to be able to dominate the political processes, and thereby, effectively about 99% PRIVATIZE the powers of "We the People," in order to use those powers in ways which have enabled the ruling classes to legally rob those who they ruled over.

My view is that nothing else exists but dynamic equilibria between different systems of lies and robbery, and that the only ways we might be able to correct the runaway imbalances that are manifesting now is IF enough people understood that enough, in order to provide better resistance against being robbed blind. However, unfortunately, the ruling classes also control most of the opposition, who therefore continue to assert that the "solutions" to these problems is for everyone to become better sheep, rather than better wolves.

I like reading Zero Hedge, because it tends to quite rightly focus on the BIG PROBLEM, which is the creation of the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts, doing more of which to resolve its problems only makes them worse! However, almost none of the articles, nor comments upon those articles, provides sufficiently better language to enable us to better discuss what is really going on, and therefore, what "should" be done about that.

I just spent a couple of hours on the phone with another ZeroHedger from another country. That was awesome. What a great conversation. What a great guy. I have not laughed that hard for a while and holy shit, he is smart as a whip. I cracked him up too and we had fun but that is the point. The guy totally gets what I am doing and supports the idea and it is somebody you know but I don't tell about who anyone is. I just can't do that.

Manipuflation@boatingaccidentnews.com if you want to give it a go. Good people are are out there and now I know they want to talk. You can really talk about anything you want. I don't need a phone call per se but it is more fun then you think. I do not give names.

The NWO took over control of the national political processes, in order to have their frauds legalized, which then were enforced by the legalized violence operated by those countries' police and armed forces. That is how the banksters operate as the biggest bullies, who are able to say to pretty well everyone, "Gimme' your lunch or I'll punch you in the face."The monetary and taxation systems have become that for the banksters, operating as the biggest bullies, through their political puppets, while the masses of muppets are brainwashed to believe in the bullshit about governments being the "good guys."

The NWO is the result of thousands of years of War Kings, creating the powers of sovereign states, which were then covertly taken control of by the Fraud Kings, the central banks. Thereby, the entire population ended up inside debt slavery situations, which are based on private banks being legally allowed to make the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts, while the governments force themselves, as well as everyone else, to operate inside of that system. That is the way that the banksters have become like a new royalty.

Almost everyone is forced to live inside of the established monetary system, because money controls food, etc., which therefore controls people, which power has been taken over by the biggest banks, through the prolonged and persistent application of the methods of organized crime to the political processes, such as bribery, intimidation, as well as assassination of those who could not be bribed or intimidated, so that the vast majority of politicians are the banksters' puppets, whose job is to perform for the masses of muppets. The ways that people need money to live means that those who control the money supply, by being able to make that out of nothing as debts, control the people. It has all become a vicious spiral, which is automatically getting worse, faster!

There is an abundance of historical details to demonstrate exactly how that happened. However, the central core is plainly obvious, just ask: "Who is making the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts?" The answer is overwhelmingly private banks! That is also the answer to the question: "How did the whole world end up so deeply in debt?" Nobody had enough real money to lend to create those debts. Those debts were the result of private banks being able to legally create fraudulent "money" out of nothing as debts.

BANKERS' BASIC SYSTEMS:

DEBT SLAVERY BACKED BY

WARS BASED ON DECEITS.

THAT IS THE WAY THAT THE BANKSTERS OPERATE AS THE BIGGEST BULLIES, WHO EFFECTIVELY ARE ABLE TO SAY TO ALMOST EVERYONE "give me your lunch, or I will punch you in the face."

If you really do not already know that, Alternative, then you have a lot of homework to do to get up to speed. I recommend this collection of free videos, which you could watch:

They are an entertaining way to assimilate the basic social facts regarding how the international bankers are the biggest bullies, who have an agenda to consolidate their global hegemony of enforced frauds, as a New World Order, in which they continue to control civilization by being able to make the public "money" supplies out of nothing as debts, which frauds an emerging world government will continue to enforce. They are the best organized gangs of criminals, which have been able to make the governments become the biggest form of organized crime, which works for the banksters, while the vast majority of people were reduced to Zombie Sheeple, who were getting fleeced to exhaustion, and being set up to be slaughtered. In that context, this article above is relatively superficial regarding how bad things really are!

From the tenor of your previous comments, Alternative, I got the impression that you must be a mainstream moron, who barely has a clue about how the real world actually works, which is probably why you have been getting a lot more down-votes than up-votes, for your apparently superficial comments. Therefore, I recommend that you take a few hundred hours to watch those videos, most of which have already been previously featured on Zero Hedge, in order to get up to speed regarding the level of understanding of these issues that is shared by most people on Zero Hedge, who have already taken the time to assimilate that information.

Neither extra regulation nor relaxing the rules will help. Nationalism is the one and only solution. When your countrymen are being invaded by hostile and racist immigrants, and your elite side with such, it is time to kick both out. This is the situation we see all over the USA, the UK and Europe.

We need some kind of trans-national nationalism, recognizing that we all have the same creed of internal enemy, and the solution is a world of nations that respect each other's borders, and respect the diversity of races, that only patriotism can defend. It is the multicultural globalists that are the first to belittle nobility and honour in this world. Every PC tard is a ganster wankter at heart.

Are you recommending to separate the races and cultures through national borders? Of course that would also imply lots of secession and lots of border adjustments. Should the African Americans go back to Africa and the European Americans go back to Europe. Should the Europeans in Palestine go back to Europe?

Anyone who believes that any individual exists who can do what others cannot is elitist (pro-elitist), even if they are smack dab at the bottom of the social totem pole. Sadly, about 99.999% of human beings are now pro-elitist due to endless brainwashing by parents, teachers, friends and media.

Certainly any government must treat everyone equally, but clearly some people are much better than others, and even if they are only 50% better, that margin impacts the future in a paradigm altering way that is exponentially bigger than than 50%. For example, if everyone were exactly average, then the iPhone would never exist - ever - not in a million extra years.

Perhaps what you are really talking about is how we have gotten so far away from the free market that we now have a system that results in so many people at all levels who did not honestly earn everything they have, and so many people at the top who are not elite in good ways, like wanting to leave the future a better place than if they had never existed, but who are elite in bad ways, like being more dominant. At all levels, this is what is wrong with the people.

A "democratic republic" was the best theory for how to assemble and channel the powers that EVERYONE has to rob, and to kill to back that power to rob up, through the "rule of law." However, that "democratic republic" indeed has been almost totally destroyed by the successful "brainwashing by parents, teachers, friends and media," which was originally driven by the triumphs of lies, backed by violence, taking control over the "money" system and taxation systems, which everyone else was forced to live within. Democracy is ONLY a form of slavery because the minds of enough people have been enslaved to believe in the bullshit state religion which surrounded them from the time their were born. Freedom cannot exist without a force. The real limits to "freedom" are the limits of energy, which cannot be created out of nothing, nor sent to nothing. People who tend to use the transcendental poetry language about "liberty" tend to deliberately ignore that reality.

AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED MANY TIMES BEFORE, honestann, you continue to appear to believe too much in there being some fundamental dichotomies between the people who act like predator/parasites, versus the people who are their prey/host. There are NO fundamental dichotomies between people! They all channel the same energy through them. In that context, a constitutional democratic republic, or even a constitutional democratic monarchy, are still theoretically good political systems, to cope with the chronic political problems which are inherent in the nature of life.

The fundamental FACT is that everyone has some power to rob, and power to kill to back that up. Slavery was about how those powers were assembled and channeled, primarily through the history of warfare. Constitutionally based systems, operating through the rule of law, were the best legal theories about how to provide checks and balances, and divisions of powers, to better balance the dynamic equilibria of how those powers to rob and kill operated. Tragically, the runaway triumphs of the biggest gangsters, the banksters, gaining ever increased control over the "money" systems, then enabled them to constantly ratchet up more and more dominating control over all other social institutions. Therefore, "democracy" became another form of slightly more sophisticated slavery, as the majority of people were rendered Zombie Sheeple.

However, in my view, honestann, you continue to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" in your approach, which approach is more or less shared by many other people who post comments on Zero Hedge. You tend to recommend the absolutely impossible ideal that there should be no predator/parasites, instead of recommend how those predatory or parasitical functions could have their necessary purposes be achieved in better ways. You seem to reject out of hand that the only forms of better government must be better organized crime. Therefore, you always follow your relatively good analysis of the problems with collapses back to impossible solutions.

"There are NO fundamental dichotomies between people! They all channel the same energy through them."

We are all made of atoms, so we are the all the same?

BS.

Clearly, we have different genes, different environments, and different levels of understanding reality.

Perhaps you mean there is just one external objective reality?

It sounds like you are just saying that we all must have some degree of ability and willingness to use force to get what we want, or we won't get it, whether we want freedom or something else. This is both trivial and BS. The ability and willingness to use force is just one of the ways we get what we want.

It sounds like you are saying life is a zero sum game, as if my wealth reduces your wealth or my freedom reduces your freedom. This is also BS.

Obviously, Future Jim, I must agree with you that there are relative dichotomies between different people. What I am asserting is that there are no FUNDAMENTAL dichotomies. While everyone is more or less different in various ways, the same energy flows through them all. However, that is NOT able to be understood by anyone as "just one external objective reality." It is impossible for any finite story to be completely consistent. I am not asserting that I have some monopoly on the truth. I am merely presenting my own kind of transcendental poetry, to attempt to understand the world, as best I can.

I was raised on an academic technical training that was based on respecting evidence and logical arguments. However, when one studies postmodernizing science enough, that returns to ancient mysticism, from which it started, long ago. I tend to believe in using mathematics to try to approach understanding natural laws. However, when one attempts to seriously apply general energy systems concepts to human beings it becomes clear that human laws are connected to natural laws through the ability to back up lies with violence. Therefore, I do believe that "we all must have some degree of ability and willingness to use force to get what we want."

Overall, I also think that "life is a zero sum game" unless somebody demonstrates that they are actually magically able to create some energy out of nothing, and send some energy to nothing. As far as I know, nobody has ever demonstrated that they can create air, water, or food out of nothing. They always must channel the flows of that from what already existed in the environment. Different human groups could cooperate more with each other, in order to operate greater entropic pumps than they otherwise could, but they are still limited by the real limits of their overall environment, which may have become internalized through the evolution of their culture, but nevertheless, still exists.

Originally, our governments were the biggest bullies that could protect us from other bigger bullies. Therefore, joining a bigger gang of organized criminals, and working with them, could enable us to operate larger systems of robberies, backed by murders, against the possible other gangs which could do things to us, if we were not so protected. However, after the development of weapons of mass destruction, our governments have become criminally insane gangs of bullies, whose bullshit has psychotically lost contact with reality.

Actually, in my opinion, given the degree to which our civilization has become criminally insane, we are operating inside that context in ways which are way worse than merely "zero sum games." These days, it seems to me that the way were are operating civilization, through enforced frauds, which depend upon attitudes of evil deliberate ignorance, we are operating through extremely negative sum games! Although energy will still be conserved somehow, somewhere, we are currently destroying the previous systems which were able to recycle the flow of energy more, so that there was more life and consciousness. Instead, we are engaged in extreme "flash in pan" developments of civilization, based on strip-mining the planet, in ways which will catastrophically collapse, because we operate through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, which enable there to be attitudes of evil deliberate ignorance towards the full consequences of directing our economic activities on the basis of triumphantly enforced frauds.

Class warfare was always the war of some men against other men, using nature as a ally. However, our current runaway class warfare has transformed that into the destruction of the natural world itself! I do not regard that as "BS," but as a relatively objective fact, which is not being faced, because our civilization is dominated by criminally insane ruling classes, who have succeeded in brainwashing those who they rule over to also become criminally insane.

Suppose I invent an innovative product or service because I think others will find it helpful enough to trade me enough of the fruits of their labor to make it worth my effort. Of course, I do not cheat them because my future sales depend on my reputation. Now consider that they have something to trade me because they are doing exacly the same thing. It is the free market, and it is entirely voluntary. It is self regulating, and it is the system that rewards those who are most helpful. It also created innovation, order, and benefit that did not exist before. The free market makes the pie bigger. iPhones did not exist in 2000 BC. It is a win-win. It is not a zero sum game.

Sure, in the scope of the whole universe, even when we create order, the net effect across the universe is greater entropy. Some effort is always lost to entropy. You can't get out more energy than you put in. Energy cannot be created, but that is not a loss to you and I. Worrying about the energy is obfuscation and quibbling unless the energy is going to run out, but guess what. In a free market, when people start worrying about energy running out, many people have an incentive to innovate and solve that problem.

To further show that I understand ... Consider that even evolution causes greater entropy in the scope of the universe as it creates order locally. The amount of energy we are talking about is quite small in the scope of the universe.

What you seem to be identifying is that elites are preventing the free market from solving our problems. However, you seem to have great difficulty articulating that much, let alone a solution that gets us closer to a free market.

Indeed, I AM asserting that the "elites" (I have looked at the link you gave before) are strangling us all, including themselves, to death with their ability to dominate civilization with enforced frauds. I DO have great difficulty in articulating that, because I believe that there are no genuine solutions to the real problems that the successes of those "elites" were based upon the methods of organized crime, other than for there to be better organized crime.

The current systems are due to the banksters and their buddies having been able to apply the methods of organized crime to dominate the political processes, so that almost all of the most important laws have become legalized lies, backed by legalized violence. That has pretty well destroyed the "free market" and eviscerated "capitalism." However, no impossible ideals which are based on merely saying that our civilization should not be controlled by the best organized gang of criminals have any practical point to those being asserted.

All the natural resources in the world already have some claims asserted to own them, which claims are backed up by coercion. No entrepreneur is able to operate outside of that system. Almost all "innovation" is limited by the fact that things are financed with "money" made out of nothing within the already established systems. Almost everyone is drowning in debts, and any creative alternatives are born into that deluge of debts, which tend to be drowning them. At best it is crony capitalism, but that is an understatement of the degree to which the established systems are really based on the methods of organized crime, in which it tends to be that only those innovative alternatives which play ball with the banksters are able to actually be developed. No alternative death controls, to back up alternative debt controls, are allowed to be rationally debated, inside of a society which has already been almost totally set up on the basis of death controls operated through the maximum possible deceits, and debt controls operated through the maximum possible frauds.

P.S.

I do not know whether you may have read some of my previous posts, about the ways that the concept of entropy had its meaning reversed, when an arbitrary minus sign was inserted during the development of thermodynamics, which was extrapolated into information theory ??? My view is that not only did the biggest bullies, which are currently the banksters, succeed in taking control over the political economy, through enforced frauds, but also, during history the biggest bullies were able to influence the development of the philosophy of science, in ways which tended to reverse the meaning of some of the most important concepts.

However, communicating that insight is even more difficult than getting people to understand that the banksters are making the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts, and therefore, the entire political economy has now that foundation of runaway, government enforced, frauds. But nevertheless, I believe that to more fully comprehend these problems, one should understand the ways that the biggest bullies' bullshit world view has perverted and distorted the philosophy of science, at the same time that the monetary system became the current state religion, of absurdities which dominate the existing political economy systems.

I did not see your posts on entropy. Did I use the term correctly? What do you think of this explanation of science?

If enough people awaken, then everything could change pretty quickly. there are certain smoking guns that are quite effective - like WTC7. It is already happening. Some double down on their normalcy bias, while others awaken. Fewer people are in between. If enough people understand that these self-proclaimed elites are the bad guys and are causing most of the world's problems, then they will have lost the end game. The end game may still be just as painful though.

Well, Future Jim, regarding the conclusion that: "Science is neither the only process, nor is it an infallible process. It is merely the most reliable process we have discovered. No other process comes close."

Various forms of authoritarianism are about asserting "because we say so," where them saying so tends to be backed by violence to make it so.

Science is about asking these two questions:

How do we know what we know?

&

How much confidence do we have?

The paradoxical point that I promote is that postmodernizing science reconverges with the ancient mysticism from which it originally started. It is in that context that I maintain that one of the most important ways to correct the errors in the philosophy of science is to understand how an arbitrary minus sign was inserted into the entropy equations. If you want to wade through some of my bla, bla, blah on that topic, then skim through this thread, towards its end: The Entropy Law and the Economic Process.

we all must have some degree of ability and willingness to use force to get what we want.

Do you mean "apply force against inorganic material in order to produce goods", or do you mean "force human beings to give us what is not ours"?

Because if you really believe that, you REALLY need to resolve that falsehood before you go any further. If that is what you mean, you are just plain flat out wrong as a matter of fact.

A human can survive by means of productive actions and voluntary trade of the goods he produces for goods others produce. To claim that we must steal from people or force people is just simply factually wrong.

But if you mean "we must manipulate reality"... of course. But you really should make it clear what you are saying so I and others don't think you are saying what you are not saying.

-----

PS: Humans can and do change mass into energy. However, doing that on a large scale is not very easy as you are no doubt aware. Matter is just a certain configuration of energy (and vice versa). Or stated more precisely, both matter and [electromagnetic] energy are certain configurations of the one and only fundamental field that everything in reality is a configuration of [directly or indirectly].

Furthermore, it is incredibly narrow minded as a matter of fact to worry about human beings exhausting the matter or energy of the universe. I mean... it is also true that the fundamental field is conserved (even as the matter and energy configurations can be changed back and forth into each other).

And seriously! Go outside at night sometime. Look through a freaking telescope at a few of the hundreds of billions of known galaxies, each with a hundred billions stars. Then try to comprehend the energy in just that ONE unshielded nuclear fusion reactor that rises every morning and sets every night!

THERE IS PLENTY TO GO AROUND.

If you (and everyone else) had ANY IDEA how much richer you would be if the predators-DBA-government and predators-DBA-corporations did not steal you blind every day... you would not have such a depressing view of the nature of reality... or of the potential of mankind (if he became honest).

You say life is a zero-sum game. !!! WOW !!! While at the most fundamental level, it is true that the "conservation of reality (the fundamental field)" sorta sounds like a "zero sum game", you are forgetting or mistaking one astronomically huge fact --- that you have the entire mass and energy of the whole freaking UNIVERSE... FOR FREE. You do NOT have to "create the sun" in order to collect solar power. Just do it! Just walk outside and you'll start to warm up. Haven't you noticed?

PS: Pollution is BAD NEWS. However, there is PLENTY of universe (matter and energy) to go around. I promise!

Furthermore, "entropy" is another one of those "politically correct lies"... very much like the kind of nonsense the AGW crowd spews out. On small to medium scales, entropy does work more-or-less like the liars claim. However, on large scales, it works the OPPOSITE DIRECTION, and it works that way IN SPADES. If you find some huge empty piece of universe out there, and you scatter around a bunch of hydrogen atoms (or pretty much any junkware material you like) in an utterly random, hyper-spread-out fashion at 0.0001 degree C... you have what is the most perfect entropy you can possibly find (complete lack of order, and no available energy). But you know what? Step back and be patient. Over billions of years those atomic particles will gradually start heading for the center of mass of that utterly entropic cloud you created. And the longer you wait, the faster the particles head for the general vicinity of the local center of mass and the global center of mass (of the whole cloud). Wait a while longer than you'll find clumps where the gravity pulled atoms together into macroscopic objects. Now they have more gravity and pull other atoms in even faster. Wait long enough and those seeds become... STARS.

Now you have THE MOST NON-ENTROPIC SITUATION POSSIBLE. You have 10000 degree objects... which means CRAPLOADS of available energy. And... well... obviously stars in a region of space is NOT a completely randomized, disordered environment any more. In every single way... on this large scale... ENTROPY WORKS BACKWARDS.

Which is why... it is likely... entropy is net zero (putting all scales together).

Are you two married? I love both of you. Both of you are great bloggers. I don't like the idea of you two fighting much although I know it is fight club here. I don't agree with everything that you two say but I respect you both and many times I do agree with each of you.

Has anyone ever thought about sitting down with another ZeroHedger? I often wonder how many ZeroHedgers are around me. Any? At first I thought it was for privacy but then I thought of our IP addresses. I am not going to pretend to hide anymore. I really am reclusive but maybe it is not such a bad idea if we did have a zerohedge convention of sorts. We have to do something for fuck sakes.

I know it didn't work for Ron Pual but that does not mean everyone should throw in the towel. No matter how angry we all get, we do have to give it a go one last time. But this is the last time. I do not know what more can be said.

Well, Manipuflation, in my own trivial ways, I am a "public figure:" Party Leader "Biography" | Blair T. Longley: bla, bla, blah ... However, I can not imagine wanting to make any kind of personal priority out of attending a "Zero Hedge" convention enough to bother to do so.

After several decades of attempting "to do something for fuck sakes," I have gradually been forced to accept the apparent social facts that nothing practical can be done. Class warfare has become way too much of runaway juggernaut to stop it from turning the majority of people into its road kill.

I am not interested in associating with reactionary revolutionaries in the controlled opposition groups. However, there are not enough people who have thought through better ideas to inspire some more effective resistance. I am continuing to work on the same projects regarding the funding of the political processes that I have been working on for the past 30 years, in the Canadian context, through Electoral District Associations | ONE THING WE COULD DO, AND SHOULD DO. However, doing all that for several decades has completely convinced me that the ruling classes and those they rule over are adamantly criminally insane, while my attempts at social psychiatry were merely my own vainglorious fantasies. I have reluctantly been gradually forced to come to the Dismal Cubed position that the only way that Neolithic Civilization may change is after it drives itself through madly self-destructive psychotic breakdowns, due to BOTH the ruling classes and those they rule over having becoming too criminally insane to be able save themselves.

I merely amuse myself by commenting on Zero Hedge articles, where there is a tiny minority, of a tiny minority, of people that may be interested. However, the real world around us continues to be almost totally dominated by the entrenched, established systems of debt slavery, backed by wars based on deceits, which are clearly going to become much more insane in the foreseeable future.

Apart from attempting to understand that, for its own sake, there is no practical political point in doing that. After all, there are multi-trillion dollar mass media industries around the planet, routinely pumping out billions of dollars worth of more of the biggest bullies' bullshit every day. Furthermore, the banksters have the ability to continue to make more "money" out of nothing, and so, nobody else has any possibly practical ways to compete with that already established system.

The banksters are routinely paying professional liars and hypocrites to meet, and agree with each others' lies and hypocrisies, on a scale which nobody else can come remotely close to. Moreover, when any social group starts to become more effective opposition, they then tend to find that some people are paid to infiltrate their organized, and thereby, subvert it. The only significant public opposition groups that I am aware of are bankster controlled opposition. Within the already established systems, where the "money" is both the mother's milk of politics, and the oxygen for any political fires, nobody else who has not been enjoying the privilege of making "money" out of nothing is in the same league as the banksters already are operating in.

If you are asking me we would have a very interesting talk. I am pretty pissed myself but talking about it seems to help. I am pretty easy going actually. That's what makes me so angry in the first place. And here another ZeroHedger calls me up, not even from my own country and we have a great conversation. I have not laughed that hard in a long time. Sometimes writing does not do the job. Sometimes we need to just need to talk to each other.

I think that is a good idea, Future Jim. But, all such good ideas tend to be stuck inside of the on-going Catch 22 situations, that they can not be implemented inside established systems, which are already so totally lopsided that nobody else outside of the banksters, and their political puppets, can effectively play in the long game of politics.

To start with, one has to deal with the social facts that there are a handful of huge mass media corporations, which are in debt to the banksters, and effectively directed by the same small groups of people at the top of the social pyramid systems. About 90% of the information that most people get comes through those corporations, which are collective worth trillions of dollars, and which spend billions and billions during elections to promote their views, while the vast majority of people will probably never learn about anything else.

In my view, it is relatively easy to come up with a good list of things which could be done, and should be done, to make a democratic republic work better. However, after it has already been almost 99% destroyed, then nothing on such lists has any practical way to actually be implemented. Therefore, your link is to theoretically good ideas, which actually have no practical way to ever accomplish.

I am a programmer, and I am single handedly implementing this solution and more. It is still at a very early stage, but tomorrow or Monday I will have a website to which I can direct people. I may be able to get some real traction by election time this year, and certainly by the 2016 election. Although it will not be legally binding, it will demonstrate how DC diverges further and further from both reality and from the solutions people want, which will become harder and harder for the self proclaimed elites to explain.

So, just like blogs, one man can have a pretty big impact with today's technology and do it outside of the bankers and government. Of course, there are any number of ways they could neutralize me and/or my project. If necessary, they will just Breitbart me someday, maybe they will use Boston brakes, but I think they may underestimate me and it may be too late by that time.

I applaud you trying to find (and implement) a solution. However, I suggest the great leap forward must be far more radical. It must be honest. It must not pretend that fictions are real. Surprisingly, the answer is... a return to what existed before the USA was created.

Remember, the arrogant gringos showed up on continents that were already occupied. Inherently NONE of the structures and fictional governments they created were legitimate, since they utterly ran roughshod over the people who already lived here, and the system they had practiced for many tens of thousands of years.

The ONLY solution that can possibly work is a system in which NOBODY has the power to force others to do what they say. You cannot fix a system that has such power. It cannot be done, because the most egregious diabolical predators will always do whatever it takes to gain control of that system. And so the only solution is to NOT HAVE such an entity.

And that's what you effectively have if we return to "tribes" on the north america continent, where each tribe has its own rules. Now, you might say, "wait a second, I'm still stuck needing to obey rules of the tribe". The answer is... "no you aren't". You have two choices... go find a tribe with rules you can tolerate, or move to "no mans land", which is everywhere outside of the tribe settlements (cities and large towns). 99% of the land would always be part of "no mans land". The only rule in "no mans land" is "do not harm or destroy other human beings or their property or the environment". So if you like being independent, or just like living in the countryside, live without any rules. If you prefer to be a sheeple-chimp like most humans today, choose the tribe that works best for you. And you can always leave and go to another tribe settlement if you change your mind.

The bottom line is... no "solution" that is even remotely like any current government or system on the planet can possibly work. But if we go back before the gringos slaughtered and ignored the native americans... well... life would be vastly improved. Also notice that you are only subject to one level of government in this scheme... your tribe. No counties, No states. No nation. Just a continent, and tribes that practice voluntary association.

I explain more in message not far above (in this thread).

PS: Here is a question to hopefully cause you to do a bit of soul searching. I will NEVER accept anyone having authority over me. I don't care if every other human being on the planet votes to control me, or steal from me, or prohibit me, or enslave me... I REFUSE.

So if you implement ANY system that has ANY form of compulsion, you must kill me, or I'll have to kill you in self-defense. And I'll be completely justified, for you (and your fellow conspirators) have no more right to set up a system to rule over me, than I have to set up a system to rule over you. Don't you see that?

There is lots of interesting information there, as well as some entertaining things too.

There is no need for you to "apologize." It is not our fault that we were born into a runaway system of banksters dominating civilization with enforced frauds. We may be commended for finally waking up to those social facts. However, it is not really our fault, after we learn about it, that there is nothing much which is politically practical to stop the banksters becoming the new royalty, or "elitist nobility," that have been so successful in dominating the political processes for so long that they are now effectively above the rule of law: i.e., they have demonstrated that they control the governments enough so that the biggest banks are too big to fail, and too big to jail, and so on and so forth!

Given that perspective, I thought that the article above by Hugh-Smith was one of his better ones. However, I continue to not be able to imagine how any effective resistance could be organized against the banksters, when they already can make money out of nothing, and therefore, can so totally dominate the funding of the political processes that nobody else is remotely close to being in their league.

Unless there was some series of political miracles, whereby large numbers of people surprisingly woke up to understanding the basic social facts about the banksters in ways that they never have before, then I can not imagine how the tiny minority of people who do wake up to those facts could do anything to actually change the established systems. I suppose we can all continue to try to learn from each other, and endeavour to educate more people. However, from an objective point of view, I feel like we have already lost the race to wake up enough ???

POLITICS IS NOT THE ANSWER. In fact politics is a fiction, an illusion created and manipulated by the predators-that-be to convince those humans who "want to improve things" to waste their time on INHERENTLY FUTILE efforts. And it works like a charm!

Once smart folks like you accept you've been HAD, and stop trying to find solutions within any of the existing fictional systems, you might have a chance.

I know this is a HUGE leap for you and most people. But it is necessary, because as you and everyone has found out, all those fictions are designed to control you and waste your time, energy and resources.

The only way to eliminate predators is the old fashion way. We don't need permission, humans have never needed permission to deal with predators. Even today, and even WITHIN the letter of the system, nobody needs permission to deal with predators. You don't need a government document, and you don't need permission, and you don't need official approval to perform the act called "self-defense".

It is funny though, because they'll kill you dead for doing what is technically legal, because they all pretend (all the way to the supreme courts) that the endless lawless actions the predators take are perfectly a-okay. Nonetheless, this is the only solution (other than esoteric approaches, like leave the planet). Take it or leave it. Be free or be a slave.

Yes, I agree we already lost the race. I've been trying to wake people up since I was 4 years old, but nobody listens. Hell, even people who want a way out are too afraid to eject their fictional concepts out the airlock in order to see the obvious solution --- act like any other animal and defend yourself, humans!

On this topic though... I was very surprised (and happy) to see what happened in Nevada recently. I know that is only temporary and we don't know what's gonna happen, but FINALLY people showed up with guns, and even walked to the predators and told them to take a hike! So maybe... just maybe... it isn't quite as hopeless as it appears.

honestann, as Aristotle famously wrote, "Human beings ARE political animals."

Politics MUST provide the "answers" because the problems MUST exist, because the ability to be violent exists, and has always existed, and will always exist. All of the legal fictions were based on the history of warfare, which was not a fiction, because violence backed up those lies.

When one starts talking about kill or be killed, which was a significant topic of conversation for a long, long time, it is clear that the history of warfare selected for the best social organizations that could make weapons and use them. The systems which exist today were selected by that process. All of the legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, developed from the ancient past, when there simply was basic lies backed by violence.

I continue to find your views grossly over-simplistic, honestann. They may well work for you personally, However, they have no possible general merit. That is especially the case after we have globalized systems of electronic frauds, backed up with weapons of mass destruction.

P.S.

If you were asking me, I only know of Menard through his videos. I discuss his, and similar ideas as that in this thread: The Myth of Canada, where I repeat over and over again that there is nothing but different systems of organized lies, operating robberies. In that context, nothing else exists but the dynamic equilibria between those systems, which IS POLITICS.

I continue to agree with your basic analysis, honestann, but I still think that you then conclude with backwards "solutions."

I am sad that you cannot see how utterly and obviously wrong you are. Yes, "problems" exist, in the sense that a happy, healthy, pleasant life does not happen via natural processes in the earth environment. However, don't you see how unbelievably arbitrary your claim is in some ways, and absurd in others. Let me go a bit slower to show how.

The first error is your arbitrary assumption that only politics, and nothing else, can be a solution for "problems". That is such an arbitrary and unsupported statement that any active mind must boggle at the thought.

If you REALLY intend to claim that ONLY politics can "solve problems", you need to prove that. And I already know you can't, but still, you must try if only to perform the intellectual exercise yourself.

Also note that violence is always an act of a real, physical individual human being or animal. You cannot be harmed by "government", because government does not exist. This is a fact that you simply cannot get around, no matter how diligently you try.

But yes, in most cases the real, physical human being who harms you does so because he mistakenly believes "SantaClaus exist"... woops, I mean "government exists", and so he takes actions consistent with whatever nonsense he associates with the fiction.

This is precisely the same dynamic that has existed on earth since animals came to exist. These "problems" were not solved by "government" or "politics" before mankind. You have to agree with that unless you wish to be extraordinarily disingenuous, because you know full well this is true. Before mankind, animal violence existed. After mankind, animal violence existed.

What is needed now is what has always been needed by animals, namely self-defense. And I mean serious, aggressive, deadly self-defense.

The FACT is, this issue IS simple. Extremely simple. The burden is 100% upon you to show why this issue is NOT simple. You have been provided with endless excuses and rationalizations, but I expect you to be honest, and explain in simple, clear language why a group of individual human cannot resolve the issues of violence (and whatever else you imagine we need politics for).

Deep down, you know better. I know you do. To understand this issue, imagine you, me, CD and one other human being discover some ancient technology in a cave, and accidently transport ourselves to Mars... where we discover equipment we need to survive if we invest the time and effort to operate the equipment.

Do the 4 of us need "politics" and "government" to resolve our problems? I sure as hell don't. Do you? Answer honestly. Now increase the number of people on Mars... assume we have a transporter device that lets us see earth, and "snatch" people from earth and materialize them on Mars.

At what population level do we need "politics" and "government"? EXPLAIN WHY.

And while you're trying to figure out your answer, understand that I will kill you the moment you attempt to create some system on Mars that limits my liberty, that requires I pay taxes, that requires I do certain things, that requires I not do certain things (other than harm others, which I will not do anyway, except in self-defense).

So you see, it is YOU who will create violence by creating what IS NECESSARILY a VIOLENT SYSTEM.

Bill Moyers interviewed Isaac Asimov. He asked Asimov, “What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues?” and Asimov says, “It’ll be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor. If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then they both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. And everyone believes in freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the constitution. But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, then no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there’s no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang on the door, ‘Aren't you through yet?’ and so on.” And Asimov concluded with one of the most profound observations I've seen in years. He said, “In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive overpopulation. Convenience and decency cannot survive overpopulation. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies, the more people there are, the less one individual matters.”

The other day I was arguing in favor of anarchy. I've been replied "without laws women would get raped", anarchists do not realize how much they benefit from laws.... Please what would you answer to the "rape argument" ?

I don't quite know what point you're trying to make, so I don't quite know how to answer effectively. So I'll just throw out a few scattershot comments to your reply.

The story I'm about to tell you is true. I've had interactions with NASA since I was in junior high school, won some stupid science fair, and got a trip to a couple space centers. For many years thereafter I did contract work for NASA from time to time. Back near the beginning there was lots of thought and discussion about Mars missions (the next obvious step after the moon missions were becoming "recent ancient history"). To make a very long story short, I wrote up a proposal that proved and demonstrated that by far the best way to design a Mars mission was... one way. Send one, two, three or some small number of humans to Mars... and leave them there until they die.

In my proposal I volunteered to go... alone. Though I was a complete astronomy fanatic back then, my main reason was... I have always loved solitude. I was completely serious then, and I would be completely serious now, to say that I'd love to live the rest of my life ALONE on Mars... or better yet in/on/behind some small moon, asteroid or comet.

I also lived alone for several years at a remote scientific research station, and loved every minute. Typically I wouldn't see another human being for months at a time, and I had no communication devices either, so nobody to chat with but myself (in a manner of speaking).

So, now that you understand my context, I hope you will fully understand what I mean when I say overpopulation massively pukes me out.

Oh, and nearly 3 years ago I moved to the extreme boonies and set up my own little [mostly] self-sufficient place that is not accessible by land vehicle to live alone... 125km from the nearest human beings (a town with population of perhaps 50~100).

So unless I'm very confused, I don't see much evidence I enjoy or promote or practice overpopulation. Oh, plus I have no kids. On the other hand, though I'm always ready to kill off a few nefarious human predators if they come after me, I haven't killed any human beings, so maybe that's where I could be criticized for not doing my part to reduce overpopulation.

-----

However, I understand science and engineering rather well, since that's what I've been doing with my life since I was just a few years old. Put that together with my personal "prime directive" (honesty), and I've had to state several times in ZH messages how much population COULD BE supported on [a planet like] earth... IF... humans weren't such complete morons and slimeballs.

People take that honest answer to mean... I prefer large population, or at least don't think overpopulation is a problem. The truth is, earth can handle several times the current population... IF... humans got honest, ethical, prudent and took diligent care of the earth environment. However, I have explained endless times on ZH that humans beings are the biggest bunch of insane morons and sheeple-chimps that have ever stained the reputation of the universe. Given the ACTUAL nature and behavior of human beings (not their potential), my opinion is that any more than 70-million human beings on earth is overpopulation. Which means, earth is overpopulated now by a factor of about 100 to 1.

My personal preference is a population of about 7,000 humans, which means earth is overpopulated by a factor of 1,000,000 to 1 versus my personal inclinations.

-----

Most humans who live in a home with twice as many bathrooms as humans are slimeballs. The "decency" of the 0.01% who control this planet (and tend to have that kind of bathroom-to-human ratio) is approximately negative infinity.

So I agree with his sentiment, but the facts don't quite jibe given the infinite dishonesty and corruption of the human species.

-----

No matter how many sentient beings live on a planet or in the universe, my life matters exactly as much... to me. And that's all that matters for an honest, ethical, productive, benevolent, sane individual. Furthermore, I don't care at all whether I matter to anyone else in the universe. Why should I?

-----

Anyone who believes laws stop rape... need to explain why both laws and rape exist. Obviously the reality in front of our faces proves beyond the shadow of any doubt that laws do not prevent rape. Or theft. Or fraud. Or murder. Or any other behavior.

It blows my mind that so many people babble out such nonsense. Do people understand how seldom a "cop" protects anyone? I mean... seriously! Does ANYONE imagine there will be a cop around to stop a rapist? I mean... I'm laughing my ass off at the very thought. Hahaha! At MOST some cop will come and make a report. But those lawyers and cops would love to make me come to their predator station... and rape me in about 17 clinical ways to "collect evidence" and otherwise convince me to never, ever come to them again, no matter WHAT happens.

What I believe is very simple... self defense. PERIOD. I do not expect anyone else to protect me, though I will certainly appreciate if some random person (or some friend or neighbor if I had any) would come to my aid if I scream for help. But they are not obligated to do so (and risk their life), and I do not demand anything of anyone.

If that's not enough of an answer, if someone tries to rape me, I will kill them. If someone tries to rob me, I will kill them. I someone tries to harm me or my property, I will kill them. And I may get the shakes afterwards, because killing someone would be a new experience for me, but I would have zero intellectual qualms or regrets about defending myself.

But let me expand this response a bit. I do not benefit from laws... ANY laws. Not even laws against egregious acts like murder, rape and cutting off body parts. Please observe that laws are absolute, complete fictions in the first place, and in the second place, laws do not stop anyone from doing anything... EVER. What does is a bullet, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a kick in the balls, or a fast sprint, or an amazing leap, or... living 125km from the nearest human being in digs that cannot be seen from any road or the air, or posting "protected by Smith and Wesson" signs, or placing no curtain over the huge bulletproof window in your home with a large collection of seriously mean looking weapons on the opposite wall (to hint at what would be in store for any intruder), or a well designed safe room (complete with a wide variety of weapons, including a button that releases poison gas into the rest of the house), or any number of other ACTUAL, PHYSICAL devices and actions.

Note further that "laws" cannot even be comprehended by non-human animals, so "laws" are inherently ineffective against non-humans. Thus "laws" are utterly, completely and inherently/necessarily ineffective in even more fundamental ways.

FINALLY, and perhaps most importantly (though not most fundamentally), far and away the predators I most need protection against are those humans who claim to "represent" or BE the "law"... and THEY are never restrained by the "law". In fact, the "law" directs these predators to harm me and destroy me in so many ways, that no human can even count that high. Which means, in modern times especially, "laws" are my worst enemy, and may very well be the fictions that are most dangerous to me and my well being.

So... is the above sufficient reason to reject the bogus fiction that is commonly called "law", and all the predators who sanction, support and "enforce" it? Obviously I think so.

A law is a kind of "protected by Smith and Wesson" sign, isn't it ? There is nothing real in a sign, except the sign is pointing to something real. And for human beings signs become part of reality. I agree this is obviously mad, and humanity is posessed by unreality.

I totally agree with you and you inspire me. I just mean that :

There is no real/unreal distinction for humans

Denying it and claiming for reality is just as idealist as any other utopia

Well, essentially correct, though obviously adult humans DO recognize a FEW of their fictional mental-units are in fact fiction. Example: "SantaClaus". Even though most adults behave as if SantaClaus is non-fiction (to screw with the minds of kids), most adults are aware of the fictional nature of that mental-unit.

But essentially, you're correct. The mental-units that most control the actions of adult humans are in fact fictions that are not recognized as fictions.

I'm not quite sure I understand the meaning of your second bullet, but perhaps you're just saying that assuming fictions are real is a form of utopianism, which I guess it is.

And yes, a fictional law is somewhat similar to a sign. Both are just a bunch of words.

You know Rob Menard? He is a friend of a friend of mine. He is another gem, but is also captured by the sad illusion that remedy can be found in existing government documents. Well, even when that's true, the predators-that-be simply ignore those documents and remedies and stomp their boots on heads... so be careful!

I'm not sure the best plan is to restrict the invite list to ZH people, but otherwise I agree that something like that might be helpful. This relates to a comment in my reply to RM above, where I explained why I bother to waste my time posting here in the ZH message board. The short version of the answer is this (but read the above for more context). If we are extremely lucky and the predators-that-be are exterminated or chased off the continent (the "government overthrown"), then THE crucial question is... what comes next. One reason I post is the infinitesimal chance that someone who attends meetings to answer that question... can stand up and SAY WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID... and hopefully be persuasive enough.

And what needs to be said is... NO MORE FREAKING GOVERNMENT. If the "constitutional republic" of the USA was a "big step forward", then the next "big step forward" must be to officially recognize that "government is fiction", and "any and every attempt to form government will necessarily lead to bad results", and "therefore the new document crafted and signed is simply an agreement [that millions can sign via the internet] that agrees to kill any and every individual who attempts to form a government with authority over the north american continent".

I have to admit, I am not certain who belongs in this meeting you want to hold. On the one hand, people like "Tom Woods" seems plausible. Perhaps he can be convinced that "government is a fiction" and is "inherently destructive" and therefore "let's have none". I mention him because he is likely someone who might end up being at (and being prominent at) a "reboot convention".

But... difficult to say. I know there are some people who would agree with this direction, but they are not as influential or well-known (example: Jeff Berwick (for all his faults)).

I don't know how practical such a meeting is. It certainly would be nice to have people STOP pretending fictions are real things, and stop promoting all the tired old solutions that have never worked in the entire history of mankind!

And this is my problem. I am, unfortunately, one of a vanishingly infinitesimal number of people who can think outside the boxes... even outside the fringe boxes! I have to, as a matter of the work I do. But... I just don't know whether there is a chance in hell that even the smartest folks you can find will be willing to take the dramatic action of massively restructuring their mental content even if they clearly see and understand that most of the ideas they've been thinking with for their entire life are blatant fictions! I have seen a few people who were able to do that, but they are exceedingly rare.

On the one hand, I think it is IMPOSSIBLE to get any number of people to agree on ANY unconventional plan. On the other hand, anarchy is the ONLY plan that CAN BE accepted by everyone, because it leaves everyone 100% free to establish enclaves where people who think like them can live withing whatever structure they choose to establish... all within a continent that contains dozens if not hundreds of enclaves that have different structure and different rules. And then, outside of all enclaves all territory is called "no mans land" which has no rules except "do no harm to humans or their property, except in self-defense".

Amazingly, this is EXACTLY the structure that existed in the americas before the predators-DBA-government imposed continent-sized fictions which have NO PLACE TO ESCAPE the stupid enclaves that morons create, and most sheeple-chimp type humans seem to prefer.

In other words, we need to go back to the structure that existed before the gringos arrived. Not the same tribes as existed before (though some still exist to some degree), but to the same structure. You like this tribe, go join it. You like that tribe, go join it. Within the tribe, you must obey the rules, no matter how stupid they are. If you don't like it... leave and find a more suitable tribe with more suitable rules... or live in no mans land where the only rule is to not harm other human beings (or destroy the environment).

Sadly, as certain as I am that this is the only viable solution. Other than the entirety being "no mans land", which I definitely prefer, but do not insist upon because people must be free to attempt their own STUPID experiments... and SMART experiments. This also provides for a vastly smoother transition, where sheeple-chimps will hardly notice the difference (except much larger paychecks every week).

Anyway... what do you think? What would you hope to achieve? Who would you want to invite, and what would the purpose. And how many people would you imagine being there? Also, have you considered perhaps a "skype conference" instead? Might be easier... and after a few of them, if they were productive, you could still hold a real, physical meeting (probably at the same time and place as some popular and related convention).

After several readings, I still have no idea what your first sentence is supposed to mean. Maybe you can be more clear.

It is insane (literally, clinically and technically) to argue for any form of statism, whether that be communism, socialism, democracy, fascism, corporatism, monarchy or democratic republic. Why? Because none of them exist. That is a FACT. They are all fictions. When people pretend to create these things, nothing pops into existence. They do not exist, and they CANNOT exist (they are fictional abstractions).

Anarchy is the permanent state of the world, and always has been, and always will be. That is an unavoidable FACT. Why? Because all the alternatives are fictions.

HOWEVER... we can all agree that human beings can believe the fictions in their heads have external referents, and they can act as if fictions in their heads have external referents. This is rather obvious [to most adults] when it comes to a fiction like "SantaClaus" or "ToothFairy", but the vast majority of adults act exactly like children when it comes to common adult fictions like "god" and "nation" and "government" and "corporation".

And so, most human beings wander around all day acting as if thousands of blatant fictions like "god" and "nation" and "governments" and "corporations" exist.

The FACT is, there is no way for you to become an authority over me, and no way for me to become an authority over you. Cannot happen. The very notion is nonsensical and self-refuting. This is also true of any and all pairs of human beings. Which means, there is... and cannot be... any legitimate basis for anyone to be an authority over me, or you, or anyone else.

Now, I really don't know why you INSIST on pretending these fictions are real. I really don't. You're a smart guy. You know better. However, I guess you must feel "intellectually naked" to attempt to discuss issues without the thousands of fictions you have habituated thinking in terms of up to this point in your life. I can understand that, because about 90% of concepts people think with (about these topics anyway) are completely bogus. Which means, they have to do a massive flush on their brain, and reformulate new intellectual positions on just about everything.

Of course, what may not be obvious is... this process is amazingly simple. Just treat every interaction between individual human beings as interactions between individual human beings. That's all you need to do. That's anarchy... "an" for "no" and "archy" for "rulers". Thus, "no rulers". Thus... liberty, freedom, whatever other terms you may prefer.

Now, you seem to think this is impractical. You seem to think anarchy leaves human beings with no way to deal with anything. I say, just the opposite. When some predator (human or otherwise) attempts to steal from you, or cage you, or kidnap you, or harm you... you kill them. You do. You don't "call the cops". If you want, you can hire one or more body guards to help you dispense with predators, or you and your friends can form "mutual protection clubs", or handle the issue any way you wish.

I have absolutely NO idea what this "magic energy" is that you talk about, unless it is the chemical energy every human gets from eating food.

Maybe you are trying to say, "any human being can take predatory actions, and any human being can take productive actions". Absolutely true. I never denied that, and every once in awhile I discuss the practical aspects of that issue in more detail. What you don't seem to understand is... predatory action is like "murder". Once you kill someone, you are a murderer. Just because you don't kill anyone for the following month does not mean you are no longer a murderer.

Let me be clear as I can be. Imagine someone who never harmed anyone, and who produced every good and goodie he ever consumed, for his entire life. If for some reason he comes after you with an ax, or shooting a gun, you kill him, just as you would with a lifelong predator. You defend yourself. Or if he starts trying to harm your family, you kill him. Or if he starts trying to burn down your house, you kill him. Or if you find him robbing your home at 3am some morning when you wake up for a piss, you kill him.

So, I really don't understand why we have a problem with this topic. And we definitely should not have any problem with this topic when it comes to the predators we both know are the huge problem in the world. Call them "serial predators" if you will. Including everyone who works for government. And definitely including every single cop (now that there are so many completely predatory laws that one literally cannot be a cop without taking predatory actions).

You talk about political systems. There ARE NONE. There CANNOT BE ANY. They are flat-out blatant fictions.

However, we both do understand that human beings can PRETEND they are real, and take actions consistent with those fiat, fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy mental-units. Which does indeed make the illusion easier for weak-minded brainwashed fools to accept, just as an outside observer (like an alien) might actually imagine SantaClaus actually exists, since so many millions (if not billions) of human beings PRETEND that fiction is real.

You also can't seem to recognize a rather obvious fact, supported by all recorded human history. When humans PRETEND thousands of fictions are real, life sucks. Life is inefficient. Life is dangerous. And note the most important lesson of all. Whenever humans believe any of these "government like" fictions are real, those humans who have the most egregiously nasty predatory inclinations ALWAYS dominates them. It may take a little time, but it always happens! And it never takes very long. Look at the USSA for example. The country was barely on its feet when predators who took control decided to have a massive civil war to establish an official federal corporatocracy, turn living breathing humans into fictitious entities (persons), and so forth. No much later, the federal reserve takes over. And hell, there were even central banks in the USSA before the federal reserve.

You should not need any more facts than the history of the world to realize that the ONLY possible efficient and benevolent system is anarchy. Not only to live anarchy (which simply means liberty for each and every individual), but to recognize that no alternative CAN exist. Recognize that no alternative can exist because only physical objects exist. All these fancy concepts are FICTIONS. FICTIONS. FICTIONS.

If you need to spend a month to figure out what is real and what is not, take the month and figure it out. Otherwise, you'll run around in impossible, pointless, insane circles forever.

And understand this too. As long as you advocate ANY other system, YOU are a predator, and YOU are my enemy, and YOU are the enemy of EVERY HUMAN BEING ON EARTH.

This is UNAVOIDABLE. The moment you advocate ANY human being has authority or power over other human beings, those are fighting words. When you advocate ANY of those fictions, you advocate enslaving me, and everyone else on the planet. That is an action for which you deserve a bullet through the brain, like any predator.

I won't argue with you that maybe a well designed "constitutional republic" might be a little less malevolent for a little longer than other fictions, but EVERY so-called "political" system is inherently corrupt. Why? Because they are fictions. And because they necessarily presume that YOU or THEY or SOMEONE is my ruler, that you advocate some pack of predators attack me and/or steal from me and/or cage me like an animal for... simply living a simple, honest, ethical, productive, benevolent life.

You CANNOT get around these problems with ANY political theory. Which is why the only valid theory is NO political theory, namely anarchy (if you want to call "no rulers" by that name).

Yes, every human being has the power to lie, cheat, steal, maim, harm, kill and defraud other human beings. You are absolutely correct. I never denied that. And living in a world without rulers does not change this (though there will be a LOT fewer, and they will have a LOT less power, and thus be much easier to defend against and/or kill off).

I steadfastly refuse to call "self-defense" a predatory action. I can't remember whether it was you or CD or someone else who wants me to accept "self-defense" as predatory, but I utterly and completely reject that notion. But yes, both "predatory aggression" and "self-defense" are physical force... I'll give you that much.

So you see, it works both ways. Every individual has the power to take predatory actions, and every individual has the power to shoot a bullet through the heads of predators, either when they attack, or at their convenience (as in, evade now, kill later). And that is how the problem of human predators should be handled.

There IS NO MAGIC. There IS NO "system" that can prevent predators from attempting to harm human individuals or their property. Any claim that we need "government predators" to protect us from other predators is the most laughably stupid claim I've ever heard (tied with many others). First of all, the "government predators" are never around when you are attacked. I mean, duh... predators are not that stupid. Like in the jungle, predators watch for the easiest and safest time to strike. Which means, you better wear a freaking six-shooter buddy, or have some other strategy. Second, the "government predators" are infinitely more dangerous. To establish a super-powerful pack of predators has to be the most stupid action anyone could possibly imagine!

Yet that is your proposal, and the proposal of almost every other moron on the planet.

Break free from your brainwashing! We don't need no damn super-powerful pack of predators enslaving us... in order to "protect us"! Sheesh!

Note that the predators-DBA-banksters you speak of would NEVER have gotten away with fiat, fake, fraud, fiction, fantasy, fractional-reserve debt-note ponzi scammery without the predators-DBA-government. Not that some individual predators wouldn't open "banks" and offer other "financial services", but they would NEVER have the power to convince or force everyone to accept their fiat fraud.

-----

I never, ever said anything like "there should be no predator/parasites". I mean, sure that would be a nice world to live in, but every single animal, including every single sentient being in the universe, can take a predatory action at any moment --- even if they never have before. I don't say things like that, because... well... that's totally impossible!

Further, I say that if any human wants to be a predator, go ahead. But I also say, if you come after me or my stuff, I'm gonna kill your ass without a moment of hesitation, a second thought, or an iota of regret. If a human wants to be a predator out in the woods and only prey upon other [non-human] animals (that are not within farms or other productive areas), then they won't get any problems from me. In fact, those humans are perfectly fine with me, and I'd even admire them.

But give me a freaking break. Stop pretending that human predators who prey upon honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings... somehow "serve a useful purpose". My answer to that is "screw you". And I don't say this to be offensive, I see this as the exact same issue as supporting ANY of those fictional "political systems" you described. Because that is PRECISELY what you have to claim to support those fictional "political systems"... unless you just flat out admit you are a complete scumbag, and you just want to impose one of those systems because you love dominating, enslaving and harming human beings.

The very reason you are forced into that absurd and destructive point of view (claiming that human predators harming human producers is somehow healthy and beneficial) is because you MUST support that in order to justify support for any fictional "political system"... because that is PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

You close with these statement:

You seem to reject out of hand that the only forms of better government must be better organized crime. Therefore, you always follow your relatively good analysis of the problems with collapses back to impossible solutions.

The first sentence presumes I agree with your whole twisted rationalization, which I do not. Your rationalization (that I infer from your many posts) contains a number of good points and truisms, but always goes off the rails at some point, which is why it leads to blatant absurdities like your first sentence.

You claim "the only forms of better government must be better organized crime". Well, to begin with, all "government" is a fiction, so right from the start the whole conversation is inherently and unavoidably insane. But let's leave that aside for the moment. One positive aspect of that sentence is... you recognize that "government is organized crime". It sure is! Except to be more precise and avoid fiction here, it should say "government is organized predatory action". I say this because "crime" is pure fiction (which is amazingly obvious when you look at what "crime" is today --- for example, collecting rain that falls from the sky).

A government that is "better organized crime" is more destructive (because it is more efficient as a result of being "better organized"). And therefore, the fictional government you advocate is WORSE, even though you wish the reverse was true. If that sounds strange, just look at the USSA... which on paper (including the constitution) SHOULD BE "better" (as in "less harmful"). But is it? Absolutely NOT. The USSA is the most harmful country on planet earth, and also far-and-away the most dangerous.

So now do you see what happens when you get the "better organized crime" that you advocate? You get more powerful predators, and thus more domination, more enslavement, more destruction.

LIFE BY PRETENDING FICTION IS REAL IS BAD.

Then you end with "you always follow your relatively good analysis of the problems with collapses back to impossible solutions".

Well, to begin with, we must agree that neither CD or RM or me know of any way to "fix the world". What I mean is, we may be able to concoct certain ways of living that would work, but none of us has a way to implement our scheme (either voluntarily by persuasion or by force). So let's not shoot at each other in this particular arena, since we are all abject failures in this regard.

I believe mankind is finished. However, I do not claim this result is 100% certain yet... maybe only 99% probable. So my approach is to tell people what they need to know in order to "turn things around" if that becomes possible. Frankly, the recent action in Nevada was potentially promising. If people just said, "no more", and started executing official predators (who wear bulls-eyes after all (uniforms)), the problem could be solved (assuming they do things in very smart ways, which unfortunately is unlikely... albeit possible).

So my practical advice is for people to start defending themselves. I have NEVER said people should create yet another bogus fiction, or attempt to fix the constitution, or vote, or run for office, or lobby, or any other conventional action.

And the second part of my comments are an attempt to get people into the right mindset to take advantage of the very unlikely but possible overthrow of the current predators-that-be. If that happens, we need at least A FEW very articulate people to insist that the solution must be NO GOVERNMENT. Now, if you believe the "constitutional republic" that was the USA in the late 1700s was a "major step forward" for "government", then you should accept that "major steps forward are possible".

And we have all seen that a fairly well crafted constitution DOES NOT WORK.

And so, the correct answer, the benevolent answer is... the agreement signed by the equivalent of the next "founding constitutional convention" should be an agreement to fight to the death ANYONE WHO ATTEMPTS FOR FORM A REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENT.

THAT is the next step forward. A place on this planet without government. Not "yet another set of predators doing business as yet another fictional government".

Now, maybe that is an impossible solution. I'm not sure. Are you? What I am certain of though, is that any replacement government will become massively predatory, no matter what kind of government that is.

But again... I agree that the world DOES NEED people to kill predators. But there must not be any official entity assigned that job, because that always and necessarily leads right back to the most egregious predators dominating everyone. ALL that is needed is to get people used to the idea that it is THEIR JOB to take out predators. I mean, people used to understand that if a killer tiger or bear was killing (or trying to kill) people (or livestock) in their vicinity, that they need to go out, find the critter, and kill it. All people need today is to remember this fact, and understand that this is the appropriate action for predators of all species, including humans.

GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE FIXED. PERIOD.

And finally, I spend all my time not spent sleeping or posting on ZH on a scientific endeavor that WILL solve all the problems we discuss... albeit only for a few [dozen] individuals. We and our smarter-than-human robots will leave earth and live free of predators-that-be in space. Of course, one false step (turn the wrong know, or turn it the wrong way, or one little meteorite) and we're dead. And then we'll become inorganic ourselves, live for billions of years, and re-engineer the universe (or some large portion, until we realize (as we do already) that quality and creativity are far more important and desirable than quantity). But this is not a general solution, so I generally leave this out.

honestann, there are obviously different organized crime gangs, engaged in organized predatory actions. Those who are the biggest and best at doing that get to call themselves the government.

What exists is DE FACTO.

Justifications are DE JURE.

The de jure is always bullshit, legal fictions. However, the de facto is as real as the police and armed forces. They exist because they were organized and selected to survive when fighting with other organized groups doing similar things, i.e., wars and other gang warfare, between different groups of organized predatory actions. The basic Catch 22 is that those who are able to be better at being violent than you can kill you. In that context, one maybe has a choice to die, to become a slave. The currently existing systems are almost totally based on the survival of the slaves inside of that system, most of which have accepted the bullshit legal fictions that appear to provide de jure justifications for their slavery, and subjection to a force provided by governments, as the best organized predatory actions, that dominated them, and everyone else, in a de facto way.

Sovereignty is always DE FACTO.

Its DE JURE rationalizations for that are always the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories. In my opinion, many people seem to confuse the legal fictions with the facts that they are enforced. They also seem to deliberately ignore the way that anyone who can kill the predators are then predators too, and therefore, any real revolution necessarily creates some new ruling class, of better organized predatory actors. We seriously need to think through those paradoxical problems more, because the lies are different at every level, and there is no magical level at which there is "The Truth."

In our context, real, radical revolution would crucially become who had the power to control the creation of the money supply, because that power would actually be backed up by the murder system.

I continue to WISH that the ideals of a democratic republic could be better implemented, because I still think that is the best legal theory for dealing with the ways that everyone has some power to rob. I like to daydream that there could be a greater use of information, and higher consciousness, etc., ... despite the apparent default realities of collapses to crazy chaos, as the current, criminally insane, ruling classes, along with those they rule over, become more madly self-destructive.

I can not believe that there could ever be any general energy systems which did not have something like death controls operating, after one perceives and defines those systems to have some beginning, middle and end. I cannot believe that groups of human beings could ever have no politics, or no government, because I can not believe that there could ever be any groups of human beings in which there was no lies, and no violence. The politics of governments ARE the organization of lies and violence. Those things are necessarily built into the perception of beings who are born, live and die, to the degree that they are aware of that about themselves and others.

I do believe that there IS an energy in the organization, and the sum of the parts is greater than those parts. Therefore, I do believe that social organizations are greater than the individuals that make them up. Surely, it is obvious that a better organized military fighting force can defeat one that is not as well organized. That was the reality which created War Kings, which created states. The fact that the police and armed forces are better organized, and therefore can apply force in a more coherent way, to back up whatever they think is their "rule of law," is how and why they prevail. It is ridiculous to think that there could be no government, when governments emerged from the selection for the best fighting forces, in the real tests against themselves. However, the BIGGER PROBLEM is that none of that human history of the development of Neolithic Civilization, up until our recent times, had to cope with weapons of mass destruction becoming trillions of times more powerful!

Governments now actually have weapons of mass destruction, and weapons of mass surveillance. I believe that they are developing those in criminally insane way, hidebound by stupid social habits, but nevertheless, there is no doubt that those weapons exist, and therefore, the problems regarding the reality of governments are trillions of times worse than ever before. However, that can not possibly mean that the "solution" is to have no governments. Rather, we need radical paradigm shifts regarding how we understand and operate the murder systems that back up the monetary systems, and so on and so forth ...

I understand the difference between "de facto" and "de jour", and don't see anything seriously wrong with those identifications in your reply. But...

They also seem to deliberately ignore the way that anyone who can kill the predators are then predators too, and therefore, any real revolution necessarily creates some new ruling class, of better organized predatory actors. We seriously need to think through those paradoxical problems more, because the lies are different at every level, and there is no magical level at which there is "The Truth."

This decision you made to equate "predatory slaughter" and "self-defense" is INCREDIBLY DISINGENUOUS and EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. I haven't deconstructed all your work in order to attempt to figure out why you do this, but it sure smells like you need this confusion to justify something you want to justify that cannot be legitimately be justified.

However, we can agree that "predatory slaughter" and "self-defense" are both KILLING. The reason someone once invented the term "murder" is to attempt to point out the fact that sometimes killing can be GOOD (self-defense), outside the realm of good-and-bad (accident), and sometimes killing is BAD ("murder" or "manslaughter").

To pretend that someone who defends themself is a "predator" is grossly disingenuous, and gives predators a great excuse to be even more destructive than they already are. In fact, this is already what the predators-DBA-government are doing when they label individuals who defend themselves against predators-DBA-government as "murderers" and "terrorists". Your absurd formulation gives them carte-blanche cover for their grossly disingenuous claims. YOU agree with them when they claim people who defend themselves are predators (and thus "murderers" and "terrorists").

-----

The "money supply" arguments are bogus because... ACTUAL "money" (given an honest, rational meaning) is identical to every good and goodie that humans value, and can therefore potentially trade/barter for other goods and goodies.

To BE "money" (assuming the rational meaning of "money"), "an exchange of money for goods" must BE identical to "an exchange of goods for goods". In other words, to be legitimate "money" is to be a legitimate "good", so the exchange/transaction is COMPLETE. In other words, when any individual exchanges goods for other goods, he first judges that the goods he is handing over has roughly the same value as the goods he will receive (though for some personal reasons, he values the goods he will receive more than the goods he hands over).

Do you understand? The essential, fundamental process is BARTER. It is merely a human convention that some REAL, PHYSICAL, VALUABLE GOOD becomes a common good to exchange for other goods. When this happens, people find it much easier to know how much of that "common good" to expect to part with to acquire other goods, and they also find it much easier to know how much of that "common good" to demand or expect in exchange for the goods they produce.

That "common good" has been "gold" throughout most of human history, and thus "gold" has been the most common "money".

Therefore, the entire notion of "money supply" is INHERENTLY CORRUPT... unless it means "the total quantity of goods available to trade" or "the total quantity of that common good available to trade"... though the second definition is somewhat dangerous, because any [temporary] shortage of that "common good" AKA "money" can be easily satisfied by simply trading some OTHER real, physical good for the goods you need (perhaps silver, platinum, lumber, eggs, anything that has value).

Therefore, fundamentally, "money supply" just means "all goods".

And therefore, "who controls the money supply" is the same thing as saying, "who produces goods". The answer to that is... just about everyone (in a non-insane world). Because ANY good can be exchanged for other goods.

The first signs that a few people here and there are wising up to this fact are starting to appear. One instance of this is when some jerks (like the Russians) say, "hey, man, we don't need no stinking dollars (money) to trade for oil, lumber, copper and other goods... we can both accept and hand over stuff like gold, silver, platinum (and even oil and gas) for arbitrary goods.

-----

A "democratic republic" has no relationship to the fact that all animals (not just humans) are inherently able to "rob" (and always have-been and always will-be). Every layer of BS between the "robber" and "robbed" just confuses the issue, which is why I cut through all the BS and give my blessings to self-defense, and refuse to equate self-defense with murder.

-----

I really don't know what this phrase "death controls" means. Probably somewhere you clearly defined that term, but I missed (or forgot) that article. I suggest you explain that term at least every few messages so we don't argue about nonsense.

-----

You say...

I cannot believe that groups of human beings could ever have no politics, or no government, because I can not believe that there could ever be any groups of human beings in which there was no lies, and no violence. The politics of governments ARE the organization of lies and violence.

You really need to think a bit harder about the statements you make. For example, consider your first sentence. Note that all sorts of animals take violent actions against other animals (of other species and sometimes their own species), and other animals also practice various forms of deception. But NONE of those animals have any governments.

This COMPLETELY refutes your point.

Animals have no governments because they have no language, and therefore no means to insert absolute, complete, utter FICTIONS and NONSENSE into their consciousness. These animals without language only form mental units in response to exposure to REALITY (via sight, hearing, smell, taste, pressure, temperature, etc).

Now look at your second sentence. This is true, but you apparently confuse the significance of that comment. So yes, politics and government are organizations of lies and violence. True enough. No dispute. But you seem to imply this sentence is an equation, when it is not.

What must be pointed out is this. And individual humans can also "create endless organizations [and configurations] of lies and enact violence". Also, Peter, Paul and Mary can create "create endless organizations [and configurations] of lies and enact violence" (without forming any fictional cover stories like "corporation" or "government").

The point is important, because:

The politics of governments ARE the organization of lies and violence.The politics of corporations ARE the organization of lies and violence.The politics of partnerships ARE the organization of lies and violence.The politics of individuals ARE the organization of lies and violence.The politics of families ARE the organization of lies and violence.The politics of clubs ARE the organization of lies and violence.The politics of dogs ARE the organization of lies and violence.

See where I'm going here? You make a huge point about the instance of government being the organization of lies and violence, but...

lies and violence are NOT UNIQUE TO GOVERNMENT.

These days, virtually every individual, every couple, every informal group, every formal group, every organization, every fictional entity of every kind spends much of their time, effort and resources crafting, spreading, promoting and attempting to enforce lies and violence.

Which means, this is NOT a special attribute of government... it has become the habituated modus-operandi of human beings in general, and is also part of the animal kingdom as well.

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Why? Because even if you solve the problem with regard to "government", which you can't, you haven't solved the problem, because humans will still be practicing this behavior on behalf of themselves, their family, their crowd, the several special interest groups they support, their church, their religion, their school, their neighborhood, their football team, their clubs... and so forth.

THIS is why the only solution that MEANS ANYTHING is a solution at the level of every individual. If you don't solve the problem at the source (human beings), you don't (and can't) solve the problem AT ALL.

That is why I finally realize that all solutions must be formulated at the level of the individual. Besides, all those other levels are just bogus fictions anyway, which means they are simply insane when taken seriously. So let's not be insane, let's be sane, and solve the freaking problem.

Yeah, I know. We aren't going to solve the problem. True enough. At least we both understand this much. But at least I address the root cause, which is, because humans are utterly, completely, and clinically insane in the most fundamental possible way. All day every day they think with mental-units that are blatant fictions, yet they take these mental units as NON-fictions during their thinking process. No solution is POSSIBLE as long as human thought processes are utterly, completely, dramatically insane. And not just a mistake here and there, but the most reverently referenced mental-units are the most completely defective and insane.

-----

The reason "lies" and "violence" and such are part of human consciousness is... because they are actions every human child (and many other animals) observe every day of their lives. So of course they are fundamentally part of human consciousness, because they see these actions more often than the see the sun, moon and stars!

None of this means we must solve the problem on the level of "politics" and "government", since these actions are NOT exclusive to "politics" or "government". They are part of the animals experience, and simply much worse in the experience of the human animal, because language has given human predators an incredibly simple way to completely insert utterly bogus fictions into the consciousness of virtually every human in order to subvert their ability to be sane, to subvert their conscious processes, and mislead them in just about every way imaginable. After all, fictions are not constrained by the nature of reality or the so-called "laws of science". No, fictions can be completely unconstrained NONSENSE, and lead human consciousness absolutely ANYWHERE given a diabolical or confusing enough set of nonsense.

-----

It is true that some systems have attributes that the elements do not have. A "flying machine" (airplane) is a simple example. None of the components alone can "take off, fly several thousand miles, then land".

However, ALL so-called "social organizations" do NOT have this feature. Any two individuals can enact everything that so-called "social organizations" can enact. It is even difficult to come up with things single human beings cannot do, though sometimes it is necessary to concoct extremely wacko scenarios to figure out how a single individual can do them. And one could claim that "reproduction" just doesn't work with a single individual... though that is not so clear either any more given advanced cloning techniques.

Nonetheless, all those "collectivist" notions that end up being "only society exists, and the individuals are simply fragments of that society, and must be subservient to that society" are absolute nonsense and BS. I know you didn't push this issue THAT far, but the result always ends up being the same... a justification to lie, cheat, steal, harm, defraud, control, enslave, manipulate, dominate and ultimately destroy individual humans beings.

Your example about the "organized military force" is also obviously bogus, though one can invent many specific cases that appear prove EITHER side of that dispute. For example, so-called guerrilla warfare seems like it can be very effective --- remember Vietnam? OTOH, a reasonable person could claim the military industrial complex did not want to win the war, because that would have ended the spending, and who can deny that?

Nonetheless, I would say the Swiss approach is pretty valid... the notion that you arm everyone to the teeth and make sure they know how to shoot straight and not shoot themselves in the foot, and nobody wants to attempt to invade a country where everyone in that country is fighting on the territory they are very familiar with (their back yards and neighborhoods), and there are NO REPEATING PATTERNS to identify, because everyone is making up their own strategies locally. This is a HUGE and INHERENT problem with "organization"... it can be compromised. While in contrast, a random set of different and diabolically individual approaches (potentially optimized to each local terrain and town specialties and resident skillsets) can be a real mother to defeat.

Of course, you MIGHT call that a "different kind of organization", which simply reveals that sometimes the concepts we choose are not the most effective ones for the context we choose.

Your example of the "police" is even more laughable! If human beings were even 1/10 as observant as me, they would realize that "organized police" are inherently TRIVIAL to destroy (if you have even 1/10 of a brain, which unfortunately modern humans cannot achieve on their very best days). Let me explain why I am right about that. To be able to function, all the fictional self-proclaimed organized "authorities" must wear uniforms. Otherwise nobody will distinguish them from some random armed thug.

But a uniform is exactly equivalent to a HUGE target painted on that individual. A random NOT organized individual with 1/10 of a brain (in a police-state environment) can pick his times, pick his spots, pick his situations, pick his circumstances, pick his camouflage, and just sit in his invisible spot staring through the optical scope on his device of choice, and when one of these self-labeled targets appear, and the environment is otherwise favorable to the unorganized individual sniper... well... you see the advantages I'm sure. No need to engage when inconvenient, or dangerous, or when too many people around, or anything else. The simple fact that these predators have to go out in public and wander around with crosshairs on themselves to operate at all... is just one HUGE downside of this "organization" you refer to.

Of course, like I said, humans don't have 1/10 of a brain, so probably when the next revolutionary war starts, "the people" will be mowed down in droves, and that will be that.

But that doesn't make your argument true, it just demonstrates how STUPID modern human beings have become... even when their lives are at stake.

-----

So I am in the unfortunate position of KNOWING that predators have NO FREAKING CHANCE WHATSOEVER if humans had 1/10 of a brain, and acted in sensible manners towards predators. The current predators would be WIPED OUT in very short order, and that would be a lesson to everyone in the future deciding whether to adopt the predator life that... they probably won't live a week if they do.

But on the other hand, given the ACTUAL intellectual state of mankind, it appears very unlikely humans have one chance in a million. That fatal flaw in human consciousness that I pointed out DEFEATS THEM EVERY TIME. Not every single individual, but at least 99.99999% of them, even including the vast majority of extremely smart people. Make no mistake, smart people can be just as insane as dumb people. In fact, their greater ability to handle more abstract mental units gives them the capacity (and inclination) to be vastly more insane than joe sixpack.

-----

Unless people wise up, it appears the higher population density goes, the more insane and the more dominated by predators mankind accepts. Which is a very depressing thought, since the human population is already very high, and continues to grow. On this basis it is very plausible to claim that humans are screwed. I suppose it is ironic to point out that when the NWO crowd finally gets around to killing off 90% of the population per their plans, this will reverse that tendency... somewhat. But I'm sure they have made provision for that too.

-----

To hell with "monetary systems". All we need is "goods", including "gold".

To hell with "murder systems". Vigorous self-defense eliminates them.

-----

Finally, the paradigm shift you're looking for is precisely what I propose. And no, what I propose is not "no government". There IS no government, there cannot be any government, there never has been government, and there never will be government. Because "government" is inherently a fiction.

There is NO difference between a bunch of thugs who go around and tell you to obey or their smash your skull in, and "government"... except for a simple NAME attached to these thugs. But a NAME is just a NAME (a sound, some letters, a label), not something real. The name of a "government" is simply a few characters added to the mental-unit in your head where you store everything you know about those thugs. PERIOD.

No matter WHAT you do, you cannot create government. To pretend any such entity exists is just silly, and only serves to confuse the nature of those predators, which only serves those predators, not the rest of us.

Naw, he's like the little squirt that runs around kicking people in the knee and when someone cracks his skull open for doing it he pleads to the assembled crowd that the one who defended himself is...a bully.

Hardly worth the time or effort for a sore knee under the circumstances.

Elitist = war criminal; psychopath; financial terrorist; enemy of 7 billion people during the early 21st century. They could not stop until they were locked up. They were financial perverts that carried deletarious DNA. They attempted to start WWIII to save a buck. But then the military elite (another form of mutant human) realized that everyone would soon be dead, vaporized to use their term, if they did not round up the elitists and put them under lock and key.

"They attempted to start WWIII to save a buck. But then the military elite (another form of mutant human) realized that everyone would soon be dead, vaporized to use their term, if they did not round up the elitists and put them under lock and key."

...'Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job – in fact, he had asked for it – but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so – if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start – was there any sense in starting it? "Ah," the Lord said, "you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it."
.http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock3b.html
.
Paul Pena - Jet Airliner (The Original)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjr5U7g6aiA

Are we talking assets or income? If there is an asset bubble it will pop. And we know when the next sh*tstorm hits and the assest bubble bursts charts will suddenly look a lot different. Plus, the income charts will look a lot different.

People make a lot of hay out of the present differences for political gain. The stats as they are now won't last.